Quote: Well, you tried to add the historical thing to your response even though I thought we were not talking about these issues in a historical perspective.

Well, perhaps that has been part of the problem. The scope of the initial question could be read either way (meaning to contain historical reference or not). To say that "okinawan kata contains grappling techs standing and on the floor" seems to imply that those applications were:

(A) practiced by those that created the kata

and/or

(B) transmitted to others

Which does not *seem* to be the case. Are you claiming those types of things? If not, then you have been disagreeing with me for no reason.

Quote:However, I believe you are saying that the first arguement you do not agree with and the last two you do. Is that correct?

Within the scope of my above qualifier, yes.

Matt, I thought we were agreeing to have a discussion on the techniques as seen in the kata today without the historical reference. Does it really matter what I personally believe about the historical relation. For example if you believe that jeet kun do is the forefather of MMA and I believe that brazilian vale tudo is we can still have a discussion regarding the strategies and techniques utilized in MMA, right? However, I am confused as to why discussing whether or not okinawan kata contains grappling techs standing and on the floor implies that the creators of the kata practiced those applications. By your logic it is impossible to have a discussion of what techniques the okinawan kata contains without discussion what applications the founders utilized. Unfortunately there is no such record and it is impossible to prove either way. In light of this lets have this conversation without the historical references. What do you say?

If its, as YOU say "impossible to prove either way" you might consider laying off speaking as it were established fact and not personal opinion---and while your at it, since its "impossible to prove either way" you might relax a bit when people disagree with you....stop treating it like a personal affront for people to have other viewpoints.

You clearly have been dragging this around with a great big old chip on your shoulder for the last "4 months."

Enough so you derailed the civil discussion I was having so you could vent.

But what annoys me is that your all over the board on what your saying--one day its "x" the next then "y"---you also have the unfortunate tendency to make overblow trival diffeneces in what you say as if they were serious distinctions.....so when people comment on what you said--instead of dealing with the content of the questons, you spin it into a arguement about "I didn't say that" or something like it......the upshot being you don't really say much of anything---other than accuse people of essentially putting words in your mouth.

Tell you what---why don't clearly lay out your line of reasoning here, tell us exactly what you belive and why then we can address it DIRECTLY--not from what may or may not have been said or meant or implied or inferred from 4 months back?????

Quote:Medulanet wrote: "...but I guess that's what averaging 10 posts a day will do to some people."

For the record, Medulanet has had 15 posts so far today.

Huh...

And Christy has little knowledge of the term "average". I have a little under 2000 posts in almost 5 years not 13000 posts in a little under 4 years. This means I am averaging slightly over 1 post per day.

Very good. You are starting to get the subtle difference between today and a day. Where as today is a specific day and a day is in reference to any given day within a specific time span. That span being one's time since being registered on this forum.

"Actually CXT my argument has not changed. In fact I laid it out in my last reply to Shonuff why don't you read it and addres sit directly."

"Actually" there Med--your last reply to shonuff is as follows:

"Actually, I don't belive that I ever said "win on the ground" I have simply reffered to not giving up and continuing to fight if put on the ground."

Well, I guess I can agree that its a good idea to not give up if taken to the ground----but what does that have to do with the topic at hand?Forgive me but I fail to see the "case" I asked you for in that reply...perhaps you meant something else? Perhaps a different person? On a different thread?

If you either can't or won't answer my DIRECT questions---then I'm not sure what your hopeing to achive here...short of an exhibition of verbal/textual "dodge and weave" it would seem that you have no intention of actual discourse or discussion.

If you have an actual case with proper support and reasoning to make it would seem a very simple matter to simply lay it out so that I could see it....not get all shifty and snide and specifically direct me to "arguments" that are NOT were you said they would be.

Dude, just tell me what you belive and why you think it and what support you have for that POV, and where I can find it--or at least start looking.